Court orders notional promotion to Principal Commissioners of Income Tax due to inconsistent Tribunal decisions.

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioners' applications seeking notional promotion to Principal Commissioners of Income Tax was unjust due to inconsistency in Tribunal decisions. The Court quashed the rejection order and directed the respondents to grant notional promotion to the petitioners within 90 days, following a similar earlier case.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of application seeking quashing of orders and notional promotion to Principal Commissioners of Income Tax.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the rejection of their application seeking to quash three orders and grant notional promotion to the post of Principal Commissioners of Income Tax with consequential retirement benefits. The applications were based on a Tribunal order in a similar matter. The petitioners and another individual were serving as Commissioners of Income Tax and were in the consideration zone for promotion to Principal Commissioners when additional posts were created. The petitioners' names were considered for promotion by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) along with the other individual, who later approached the Tribunal for notional promotion. The Tribunal allowed the individual's application, but a different member rejected the petitioners' applications without considering the earlier order.

The petitioners argued that they were in service when the decision to increase posts was made, and the ACC meeting was scheduled later. A list of officers in the consideration zone was prepared in January 2015, including the petitioners and the other individual. The Tribunal had granted notional promotion to the other individual based on this list. However, the Tribunal did not consider this in the petitioners' case, showing a lack of parity in treatment.

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioners' applications was unjust, as there was no consistency in the Tribunal's decisions. The Court quashed the rejection order and directed the respondents to ensure notional promotion for the petitioners, similar to the earlier case. The Court ordered implementation within 90 days of the judgment, allowing the writ petition.

---